girlgeniusfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Naming main articles for female characters
A policy is needed The amount of conflicting editing activity since mondays comic came out should convince anyone. This is not the first time its happened or the first time Zola's page has been moved. --Rej Naming main article for female characters IMO this should be kept simple. Use the female characters first name for the main article. Redirect fancier names to there. Rational: Often the first name is all the Foglio's give us for sure. The last name is often absent. When not, often an alias, especially for interesting characters. When not an alias it is often a maiden name. Thus subject to change as the plot thickens or gets resolved. Zola is best refered to as Zola. Agatha as Agatha. Lucrezia as Lucrezia. Violetta as Violetta. Zeuxippe as Zeuxippe. We can count on the Foglio's to keep to course and give distinguishing first names to each character. That's how they keep them straight in their own minds. IMO any other course leads to future confusion, conflict and unnecessary work. I am trying to resolve an editing war here. I look forward to your comments. Rej ¤¤? 17:46, June 28, 2010 (UTC) :I think that you absolutely have point when thinking about the names but I think it is more elegant to use the full name when it is available. Talking about Zola you are aware that "Zola Anya Talinka Venia Zeblikya Malfeazium" > "Zola" > "Zola Malfeazium"? :Agge.se 18:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC) : I disagree with the "first name only" policy, it is disrespectful and sexist to treat characters differently based on gender. The full name should be used, everything else should redirect there. If a character marries and changed her (or his) name, move the page to the new name. The primary name should be the current/last version of how the character would want to be called in semi-formal circumstances. (I was going to say "formal", but I think we want "Baron Klaus Wulfenbach", not "Klaus Longhorn, tenth Baron Wulfenbach, fifth Marquis of Riversedge, honorable knight of the holy order of Mechanicsburg, knight templar of Beetleburg, protector of Armithium, …". I know Klaus wouldn't do it, but some nobility get carried away with titles.) : Yes, it is a pain and takes effort to maintain, but this is a complicated story. This isn't a wiki for Garfield. Argadi 18:44, June 28, 2010 (UTC) :: You mean we should move Lucrezia Mongfish to Lucrezia Mongfish Heterodyne? :: It is not sexist to be practical. I do not see how it is disrespectful to redirect the proper name of a character to a main page titled with their first name. I especially do not see it here because of the hurdles the authors insist on throwing at us. I would like to see more stability. Respect comes from how they are referenced in the link, not the article title. --Rej ¤¤? 19:15, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::: We probably not want to make assumptions. Lucrezia Mongfish has not ever, so far as I know, been referred to as Lucrezia Mongfish Heterodyne, and we don't know that she ever styled herself in that manner. I think full names are good, but we shouldn't invent them when we haven't seen them. Nfgusedautoparts 19:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::Following standard European 1800-1900 naming convention she should be known as Lucrezia Heterodyne after hear marage to Bill. If she was a royal and not Bill she would be known as Lucrezia Mongfish Heterodyne. ::::Agge.se 19:49, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::: I agree that was the standard, but have we ever seen her referred to with that name in the comic? Argadi 21:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Way don't we use the name in the GGCLAE? ::::::Agge.se 21:45, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::::: Generally a good idea, but only for characters without secrets. The cast list for volume 9 (the latest) says Zola "Heterodyne" to avoid giving away the information revealed today. Also, the GGCLAE itself is gone and the per-volume lists aren't updated often. Argadi 23:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC) : I would tend to agree that the article on Zola is easiest to find if it were named Zola. I simply edited the page to consistently follow the convention used on other pages. : But in her case, she is referred to as Zola in many places, while the surname of Malfeazum occurs but once in an obscure place. : As long as Zola redirects to the page, though, it doesn't matter that the title of the page is "Zola Malfeazum". What does matter, making the page harder to find, is the DEFAULTSORT parameter at the bottom of the page. Because someone looking for Zola in the index won't be caused a problem if they see Zola Malfeazum, as long as they see Zola Malfeazum under Z. With that in mind, there's no reason we couldn't put Gilgamesh von Wulfenbach under G, because people see him referred to as Gil most often. And finding Agatha Clay and Agatha Heterodyne both under A will help people as well. --Quadibloc 20:55, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Actually double redirects do cause a problem. I linked Zola Anya Talinka Venia Zeblikya Malfeazium Zola ... all those ... Malfezium to Zola. Now following that gets me the redirect page and not the current page with content. Too many redirects confuse the wiki. So we mess up redirects when we move the underlying page. P.S it does make a difference if you leave the i out of Malfeazium. You will note this comes from one who left the n out of Zeblinkya --Rej ¤¤? 03:08, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :: The index is a separate issue and shouldn't be confused with this issue. But my thought are 1) Can we put multiple names in the index? 2) Does anyone really use the index? Just type Zola in the search box and the correct article will be found (no matter how we decide the article name issue). Argadi 21:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::: Yeah, what we decide only affects OUR sanity. :) --Rej 03:08, June 29, 2010 (UTC) ::: I was dismayed when Mnenyver reorganized the character categories, because to me it seemed like characters were one type of article that was quite easy to find using the index instead of having to search. But, in general, few wikis can be browsed very well, so this may not be an expected feature, and with the number of characters increasing, there was probably no choice but to reorganize it as she did. ::: So I, at least, prefer browsing to searching, if it is possible. --Quadibloc 02:27, June 30, 2010 (UTC) :::: Okay, how does this relate to getting a decision on a policy for naming main articles? I will point out that it is easier to find things if the are where you left them. Currently we have a situation where everything is very inconsistent. Compare what we are calling the articles for Serpentina, Lucrezia, Demonica, and Zola. Plus all female titles seem unstable to me. --Rej ¤¤? 08:36, June 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::: The four articles seem fairly consistently named (after redirections are followed). S and L are using the only names we have been given for the character. Z is a shortened form, omitting the middle names. For D we don't have a full name, but D Mongfish is almost certainly the birth name so the article should be named either D or D Mongfish. Argadi 10:35, June 30, 2010 (UTC) Deciding We've had five voices so far. Do any other editors (or readers) have an opinion? Argadi 16:35, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :How do you propose deciding? --Rej 08:36, June 30, 2010 (UTC) :: Since there doesn't seem to be other support for first names only, and several people against it, I think we should continue to use our current usage of full names for everyone by default. We should: ::* Move "D (M) M" to "D Mongfish". ::* Probably make the primary Zola page the version with her middle names (that's what I would do, but I'm not set on it). ::* Clean up all the redirections. (I'll do it eventually if no one else does.) ::* Wait for more data so we can fill in the rest of the family trees. :: Any objections? Argadi 10:35, June 30, 2010 (UTC) ::: Fine with me. Nfgusedautoparts 10:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC) :::: I reserve my vote till others have said. However let me see if I understand your policy. We use last names for the women but go by their last name at birth, Agatha Heterodyne, Lucrezia,Serpentina,Demonica Mongfish, Sanaa Tryggvassen. Zola Malfeazium. Zeuxippe stays Zuexippe until her fathers last name is known then her page is moved so she gains that. Page movers are generally responsible for being aware of and simplifying the double redirects. Is that correct? --Rej 20:26, June 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::: My proposed policy: We use full names for everyone (and everything). This is generally the name they call themselves (and/or the name everyone calls them if we don't know what name they call themselves) when not being sneaky. If we don't know the full name we avoid making assumptions and use what we have (e.g., birth name or partial name). If someone changes their name, use the most recent version of the full name. (We handle situations where someone travels back in time and changes their name on a case-by-case basis.) Experienced editors are responsible for being aware or and fixing errors including double redirects and dangling /Mad and Talk pages. If a pass is made from a team's defending zone that crosses the red line then… (Sorry, got carried away.) Argadi 20:57, June 30, 2010 (UTC) ::: It should be noted that while I didn't support titling the articles by first name only, I did support using the first name only for the DEFAULTSORT parameter - for both male and female characters. I felt this would address the major issue that obscure full names were causing. --Quadibloc 14:03, July 1, 2010 (UTC) :::: Okay. Why don't we treat sort order as a separate issue? I. E. give it its own water cooler forum? --Rej ¤¤? 15:35, July 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::: Maybe that is an idea, but I suspect that at the moment I'm the only one concerned with that issue; I hadn't realized that it was the redirects and the page moves that were the issue. My understanding had always been that we were already following the policy Argadi proposed here: full names, and experienced editors clean up the redirects. Thus, only the sort order seemed to me to be a new issue, which was why I mistakenly thought it was the issue you were raising. --Quadibloc 23:50, July 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::: No. Your not. Especially in the greater context of wiki navigation. --Rej 03:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::::: At the moment, though, I don't have a grand plan to make the wiki easier to navigate. Basically, I would have been inclined not to go with Mnenyver's changes to the character section, but I accepted that she was right to make the changes she did, because even if it had been easier to navigate before, it was getting unwieldy due to the number of characters. --Quadibloc 00:43, July 5, 2010 (UTC) Main title baggage and site stability As we talk about this I am finding my main issue comes from the work generated by moving a main title. Lets presume its a page people care about. Then you need to move * It and its talk page. * The associated mad(i.e. formal theory) page and its talk page. * The associated Forum(i.e. informal discussion) page and its talk page. * Find and fix up double and even single links. With evil women like Zola we have had to do this several times. Worse when a new name is revealed each editor (junior as well as sysop) will have different ideas. Enact them RIGHT away. And cause a great deal of work and confusion for everybody. For me the whole reason for a policy on names is to lessen the work and the confusion. One part of the policy might be a cooling off period before a move can happen. Say a week after the reveal. Since that is not likely to work. The other part is having a policy about what name we accept so we can use that policy to inform all editors new as well as old. Then if someone doesn't follow the clearly stated policy we send General Goomblast to have a leedle discussion with them. Rej ¤¤? 15:35, July 1, 2010 (UTC) A new proposal Rej and I have been talking, and this new proposal comes out of that discussion. It's mostly my opinion (and includes some ideas I have not discussed with Rej). The proposal is: # The preferred name for the primary page for a character is the full name of the character. (See below for more discussion of full names.) Good sources for the full name are: 1) What the character calls himself/herself/itself in a semi-formal setting (when there is no intent to deceive). 2) What other characters call the character. 3) What the Foglios call the character in narration, book introductions, cast lists, LJ discussions, etc. # When a character page doesn't appear to be named correctly, don't jump in and fix it. Propose the change on the Talk page and give others a chance to discuss the change. Wait a week (maybe less if there is a strong positive response, but still wait). We want the best wiki we can produce, but the chaos caused by multiple bad moves will frustrate people and not help the end result. # Add many additional redirect pages as are useful. # On the primary character page, add categories with a default sort of "FamilyName, PersonalName" (usually "LastName, FirstName"). # On the redirect page for the first name (and possibly other redirect pages) also add categories. This makes the characters easy to find by first name in category listings. (Multiple uses of the same first name would result in a disambiguation page, unless one character is much more prominent than another. For example, Agatha should redirect to Agatha Heterodyne no matter how many other characters turn up named Agatha.) # As always, experienced moderators are responsible for teaching newbies and cleaning up after errors and rash moves. (But if a character is renamed, don't just rush to change it back — start a discussion and wait. We don't want two bad moves.) The main reason for this proposal (and this entire discussion) is the history of Zola's page, but I don't think we should dwell too much on Zola because the history of her name in the Canon is exceptional and I don't expect many situations like that. Here are my proposed "full name" versions of some character pages: *Agatha Heterodyne *Zeetha, Daughter of Chump *Baron Klaus Wulfenbach *Tarvek Sturmvoraus *Gilgamesh Wulfenbach *Violetta *Moloch von Zinzer *Lucrezia Mongfish *André (Circus) *William Heterodyne *Skull-Queen of Skral *Mamma Gkika *Judy *Zâmî Yahyâ Ahmad ibn Sulimân al-Sinhâjî *Zola Anya Talinka Venia Zeblinkya Malfeazium In all cases these are names I believe the characters would call themselves (for the appropriate audience, and except for the modifier added because "André" is not unique). (Violetta probably also calls herself by a longer name, and when we learn it we switch to it. Same with André. Lucrezia Mongfish might be better as Lucrezia Heterodyne, except we've never heard that used.) Except for the last two characters, my proposed page name is the current name of the character page — I think consistently applying this last name proposal (based on current knowledge) is not a significant amount of work. Argadi 12:20, July 6, 2010 (UTC) :For what it's worth, I support this proposal. ⚙Zarchne 18:54, July 6, 2010 (UTC) Rej's take on the new proposal In the discussion Argadi and I had via email it became clear that his main concern was that the title of each characters main page show respect for the character. My main concern was that in times of peak revelations the wiki not be thrown into chaos and uproar by the moving of main pages as characters reveal more about their names. I have promised to support only solutions that Argadi agrees show respect. Within that parameter I still recommend to keep character page titles simple. Which means if a character like Zola, Boris or Z have a mouthful version of their name their page be modest and use first name and last name. Allow the full name to be announced on the page itself. From a practical standpoint a link referring to the name should be simple to spell. Sparks are notorious creative spellers. Don't ask me how I know this. So I suggest *Zola Malfeazium *Zâmî al-Sinhâjî *Boris Dolokhov instead of the mouthful names. In keeping with the theme of respect I suggest we use *Adam Clay and *Lilith Clay as titles instead of Punch and Judy until and unless the constructs start calling themselves by the latter names. We can redirect Punch and Judy (and Chump :). Obviously with two differing opinions no decision can be come to. So I am willing to go along with the majority of editors who feel strong enough to respond. --Rej : For Z in particular I think we should use the long name. The long forms of names in many families give family history, and I don't know what short form of "Zâmî Yahyâ Ahmad ibn Sulimân al-Sinhâjî" would be the version used by Z—I just know from experience that it isn't as simple as taking the first and last part. A better shortening would probably be "Zâmî Yahyâ Ahmad" ("ibn Sulimân" means "son of Sulimân" (Does this mean we know part of the name of the Iron Sheik?), "al-Sinhâjî" is either a description (a Laqab) or means he is from "Sinhâjî" (a Nisba)). There's an article on Arabic names in Wikipeda. From my view of respect for the character we shouldn't decide for the character how to shorten the name. (The same somewhat applies to Zola, but she (presumably) is from a culture very similar to ours so taking the first and last is probably appropriate.) Argadi 19:31, July 6, 2010 (UTC) : I can make an argument for keeping Punch and Judy as the primary names from a respect viewpoint. The information we have is that the "Clay" form was taken as part of a mission and not a name change—do we have any evidence that the change was made because they *wanted* to be called Adam and Lilith? I don't see changing the primary names unless we have evidence that they wanted to change their names (as opposed to taking the names to stay hidden to protect Agatha). Argadi 19:31, July 6, 2010 (UTC) :: Hmmm. I suspect they would like not to be associated with the names of the clowns from the Heterodyne plays. After all those names are the names of puppets and not ones that get much respect at that. Adam and Lilith sound classier and they had a chance to pick those. I'm fine with not changing their names for now. I am also fine with leaving the choice of names to others. I just needed to say what I thought needed to be said. --Rej ¤¤? 07:20, July 7, 2010 (UTC) Timing of Moves My biggest need is that moves be delayed and discussed before they happen. Canon is not fixed in stone until the books are published. Up till that time the Department of Irrefutable History may decide that reality isn't what it seems. Those of us who follow the pages closely have watched word balloons moved and revised as we comment on them. Each popular main title will have a forum page and a mad page linked to the title. All three will have to move when the main page moves. All the redirects to those moved pages will become doubled. Dampening down that movement will reduce the workload on the editors stuck with the cleanup. This will make for a better wiki. --Rej ¤¤? 18:57, July 6, 2010 (UTC) : Overloading the editors is a major consideration. I will tend to support solutions that keep this under control. Nfgusedautoparts 14:28, July 7, 2010 (UTC)